Temple Prep for Daughters

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

Quote:

Having to ignore what is really said to women isn’t a very faith affirming experience. Ignoring things takes some level of energy. Deliberately not paying attention still requires some attention.

This is the key issue for many faithful women in the church. I believe far more women than men dislike the temple, and that this is why. I think it’s one reason women generally prefer the initiatory; we aren’t confronted with the differences in the men’s version. Women are negatively surprised by the sexism we encounter in the temple, like it was hidden from us and now we are in a high pressure situation and have to agree to it.

I would prefer that my daughter embrace the covenants of the temple, that she choose to live a Christlike life, to make sacrifices, and to bind herself to her family in love. But if the price for that is that she has to be subjugated to the arm of flesh (her husband) while the reverse is not true, and that her eternal reward is permanent second class status, that’s a hard sell. I can’t sell what I don’t buy. If the choice is between my daughter’s self worth and the temple, I don’t see how the temple wins.

If that’s not really our doctrine, then it’s time to finally update the temple script. We have revised the temple ceremonies continuously since they first began. I can only hope that thoughtful changes are in the works. In ten years, it will be too late for my daughter. It’s already been 25 years too late for me.

We talk here about baby steps, water getting to the end of the rows, etc. But I don’t know if this one can wait. In ten years, it will be too late for Angela’s daughter. In five years it will be too late for my second. It’s too late now for my niece.

Thanks to the internet it’s never too late to say what was going on in our heart of hearts so long ago. There were good things that day, all dressed in white, but I wish I’d had the wisdom and courage to ignore key phrases, instead of taking them as gospel truth. (I did have the courage last time I was there to be silent at certain points.)

Again,

Quote:

Having to ignore what is really said to women isn’t a very faith affirming experience.

What’s the real obstacle to changing it?

A girl I was dating (who had already left the church when we started dating) had left for those very reasons. I hadn’t ever thought about the disparity in it until my faith crisis them I realized it was an issue as well- something I’m concerned about having to educate my future children about should I choose to raise them inside.

[Anonymous]

Hawkgrrl wrote

Quote:

One of my friends shared this post on her wall today, and it’s been (mostly) encouraging to see that it’s helped a lot of her friends share that this is how they too feel, despite being TR holding active Mormon women.

This makes me smile. :clap:

[Anonymous]

I do my best to look at it like Ray and Roy, that it is just an outdated cultural thing that will hopefully someday be changed, but it is still very hard to hear and deal with. I was so excited when I heard that new temple films were coming out, and I was just sure that this issue would be addressed in them. It was such a huge disappointment to find that the script was the same. I guess because of these new films, I don’t have hope that this will change in the foreseeable future, and that is hard for me. At least with the old films, I had the hopes that when they were updated that there could be a change. My oldest DD still has a couple years left in primary, so preparing her for the endowment is not something I will be doing in the immediate future, but I don’t have the expectation that there will be any significant change to the temple ordinances before then.

I think one of my biggest difficulties with the temple is having realistic expectations. Before going to the temple, I really thought that I’d learn more about Heavenly Mother there – it just made sense. As I just mentioned, I was sure that with the new temple films, the wording would be tweaked to better reflect the doctrine of men and women being equal partners before God. When I saw people posting on Facebook about a new policy from the church that would put families first regarding the temple, I had a moment of excitement because I thought it would be about eliminating the one year penalty for having a civil marriage ceremony. I will do my best to prepare my kids to have realistic expectations about the temple, but hopefully without sounding cynical or jaded. I do think there are wonderful aspects and beauty in the temple, and that going in with a basic idea of what to expect and how things work can help those going through for the first time so they don’t feel completely lost/weirded out, or blindsided. I do appreciate hearing what others have done in this regard. It is hard to find “middle-way” information about the temple. It seems that everything out there is either “we can’t say anything about the temple ceremony, but it is the most wonderful, amazing thing in the universe” or a view that is just completely negative.

[Anonymous]

Cedar wrote:

It is hard to find “middle-way” information about the temple. It seems that everything out there is either “we can’t say anything about the temple ceremony, but it is the most wonderful, amazing thing in the universe” or a view that is just completely negative.

Good post. And I agree it seems a bit difficult, being careful to be respectful.

But that is why this forum is useful. While we won’t discuss inappropriate things in this forum about the temple, I actually think there is less that is off-limits than we think. Ask yourself what it is we have covenanted not to reveal. It is only specific things. The rest is just stuff we are careful to talk about respectfully.

That was also part of how I prepped my daughters. I did NOT tell them…”I can’t tell you anything, you’ll figure it out when you get inside.” No…I did not want them dreaming up miraculous interactions with angels and amazing constant spiritual highs throughout the entire ceremony…those fantasies without proper expectations can create a negative first experience.

I told them about the story of creation is told, and that covenants are made, and that prayers are given and that symbolism helps us feel close to God. Since I bought them their temple clothes, we looked at it and discussed it before they went in. These things are not secrets. They can be taught and prepped before the experience to help prepare the person who will be entering the temple, and hopefully keep the imagination from building up false expectations.

[Anonymous]

I love my parents, but I don’t think they really know how to prep me for taking out my endowments in the next few weeks. So thanks very much for this post and this thread; it really helps a lot.

[Anonymous]

This was one I didn’t post on my wall or on my Hawkgrrrl FB page because I’m FB friends with my daughter, and I’m not trying to plant any seeds here!

Someone on my friend’s wall suggested framing the sexist elements as a cultural relic, not doctrinal, and empowering her to take them as she will with that in mind, and to feel free to covenant directly with God, not her husband. Hopefully it won’t be necessary to tell her to basically ignore what is said by then, but if so, well, that’s probably the best I’ve got.

[Anonymous]

I see a lot of criticism of leaders out there: for having opaque finances, for not speaking out on some of the big issues of our time (like the Pope), for being too political, for not being political enough, for not apologizing for the past, or for being paranoid, too rigid, etc. I can almost understand the inertia that keeps Section 132 in the canon. I can get past a lot, but the temple is where I really can’t fathom them. This is supposed to be the pinnacle, the crowning spiritual experience of LDS life. Are they thinking, We like it just like this? We think this is great for our granddaughters, great-granddaughters? It does not inspire confidence.

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

I wish I’d had the wisdom and courage to ignore key phrases, instead of taking them as gospel truth.

I think that’s one of the things that is holding change back at the institutional level. It takes a great deal of wisdom and courage to tinker with something that we hold to be unassailably sacred, like the temple.

I could be wrong but I think a lot of the language in the temple that creates imbalance between the sexes comes from Ephesians 5:22-24

Quote:

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

People hold the NT as being sacred and unassailable. It takes wisdom and courage to surmount the idea that things found in scripture may be challenged. People might not even be able to think along the lines of “perhaps Paul was wrong in this matter.” Paul could have fallen victim to this same trap. An incorrect, sexist attitude passes from generation to generation because somewhere along the way the attitude got tied to something we consider sacred. It’s hard to break out of that cycle but I hope we have the strength and courage to do it sooner rather than later.

hawkgrrrl wrote:

2) it’s a cultural artifact that the male leadership of the church largely don’t hear because their wives are from a generation that was steeped in sexism, and their wives benefit from not rocking the boat and the associated fame and feelings of importance of being married to the leadership.

IMO this isn’t limited to leadership. We’re still in a generation steeped in sexism, many women don’t see the inequality… and they’re married to nobodies.

Heber13 wrote:

I also thought for most of my adult life that it isn’t a problem, because if the man is not doing what is right, the woman has the out. So it balances out. But I have come to see that is not equal at all. It was just something I never thought much about because I never thought of it from the woman’s perspective. I suspect my view I used to have of not seeing the problem is probably the most common view.

That was my interpretation as well but these days I’m not so sure. Take the phrase:

hearken to her husband, as her husband hearkens to god

The word “as” created that wiggle room for me but now I see various interpretations:

1) hearken to her husband, while her husband hearkens to god (meaning if the husband doesn’t hearken to god the wife is no longer “bound” (ugh, yeah the inequality really leaps out at you there)

2) hearken to her husband, just like her husband hearkens to god

In attending foreign language sessions I believe #2 is the official interpretation.

Moot point I guess. The inequality is present either way.

Ann wrote:

I see a lot of criticism of leaders out there: for having opaque finances, for not speaking out on some of the big issues of our time (like the Pope), for being too political, for not being political enough, for not apologizing for the past, or for being paranoid, too rigid, etc. I can almost understand the inertia that keeps Section 132 in the canon. I can get past a lot, but the temple is where I really can’t fathom them. This is supposed to be the pinnacle, the crowning spiritual experience of LDS life. Are they thinking, We like it just like this? We think this is great for our granddaughters, great-granddaughters? It does not inspire confidence.

This is probably just a reiteration of what I already said but I think it requires an incredible amount of force to remove or even make “minor” changes to things we consider sacred/cannon. It may require leaders to have faith to move mountains. Us little people can move a small piece of the mountain at a time to help make the mountain a little smaller for future leaders.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

I think that’s one of the things that is holding change back at the institutional level. It takes a great deal of wisdom and courage to tinker with something that we hold to be unassailably sacred, like the temple.

Someone mentioned in a class the other day that Pres. Hinckley pondered changes to the temple for many, many years. I mean if you can’t even talk about them, how could you actually change them!

[Anonymous]

nibbler:

Quote:

“We’re still in a generation steeped in sexism”

Not to this extent. The sexism outside the church is practically nothing compared to the sexism inside the church and in the hearts of some Mormon men. And yet, to your point, the men who are nobodies in the church aren’t that sexist at all. That doesn’t bode well for those who rise through the ranks, most of whom don’t have the same type of egalitarian message that women who are bothered by these things crave. Women who dine on the fruits of their dependence on men, who buy lock, stock & barrel the idea that a woman’s place is in the kitchen being financially supported by a man, they are the handle of the axe.

And yet, there are several in the Q15 who I know support equal pay for women and have many capable female colleagues in their careers and seem more-or-less to “get it.” But they aren’t taking the risk that their second marriage isn’t going to be eternal (a risk every women takes every time she enters a second marriage).

The issue with the temple sexism is that Brigham Young was truly, deeply misogynistic. And he’s canonized. Joseph Smith may have originated the temple liturgy, but it wasn’t written down until 40 years later under Brigham Young.

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

Are they thinking, We like it just like this? We think this is great for our granddaughters, great-granddaughters? It does not inspire confidence.

Like other things, I think they’re afraid to make sweeping wholesale change. I have witnessed changes in the ceremony over my past 30 years of going to the temple (actually 20 since I haven’t been in 10 years). Changes come one at a time – like elimination of the penalties. I think they are afraid, maybe rightly so, of shaking faith. On the other hand, I honestly believe that if Pres. Monson just said “We are making some changes we feel are in accordance with the will of the Lord” most people would just accept it – and many would jump on the bandwagon of it being a revelation (and maybe that’s what they’re afraid of). Sunday will come, but Saturday can be a very long day.

[Anonymous]

Cedar wrote:

I do think there are wonderful aspects and beauty in the temple, and that going in with a basic idea of what to expect and how things work can help those going through for the first time so they don’t feel completely lost/weirded out, or blindsided. I do appreciate hearing what others have done in this regard. It is hard to find “middle-way” information about the temple. It seems that everything out there is either “we can’t say anything about the temple ceremony, but it is the most wonderful, amazing thing in the universe” or a view that is just completely negative.

Recently we had a couple of older convert sisters go through the temple for the first time for their own endowment. The following Sunday in RS one of the sisters was visibly shaken and kept saying that she can’t believe that she belongs to a church like this. Some tried to tell her that it is only wierd initially and that as she keeps going back she will learn to love it. Her eyes became as big as saucers and she left the RS meeting in tears.

I believe that there is a good chance that this sister will not return. I plan to meet with each of my children and go over what to expect for maybe a month before they go through for the first time. I believe this to be the ideal. But what about those that do not have family in the church. Who should help first time temple goers know what to expect before hand? Home/Visiting Teachers? RS/EQ presidents? “Temple Prep.” Teachers? Bishops?

This particular woman had been a member of the church for 4 or 5 years and now she might not come back. The “sink or swim” approach is not helpful.

[Anonymous]

There’s a temple prep course, the manual is online. I don’t think it’s all that helpful.

Many moons ago in my stake there used to be a person that had the calling of meeting with people one on one to help them prepare to go to the temple. It’s my understanding that there was no manual, just one on one interaction tailored to the individual. I like that approach.

Roy wrote:

Who should help first time temple goers know what to expect before hand? Home/Visiting Teachers? RS/EQ presidents? “Temple Prep.” Teachers? Bishops?

It takes a community.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

Ann wrote:

I wish I’d had the wisdom and courage to ignore key phrases, instead of taking them as gospel truth.

I think that’s one of the things that is holding change back at the institutional level. It takes a great deal of wisdom and courage to tinker with something that we hold to be unassailably sacred, like the temple.

I think people are understandably disconcerted, though, when the wisdom and courage of the cumulative years represented in the First Presidency and Q12 doesn’t add up to anything more – or different – than a 23 year-old, first-time temple attender’s.

Quote:

This is probably just a reiteration of what I already said but I think it requires an incredible amount of force to remove or even make “minor” changes to things we consider sacred/cannon. It may require leaders to have faith to move mountains. Us little people can move a small piece of the mountain at a time to help make the mountain a little smaller for future leaders.

What are some concrete ways to move those small pieces? Things that would really make a difference.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

nibbler:

Quote:

“We’re still in a generation steeped in sexism”

Not to this extent. The sexism outside the church is practically nothing compared to the sexism inside the church and in the hearts of some Mormon men. And yet, to your point, the men who are nobodies in the church aren’t that sexist at all. That doesn’t bode well for those who rise through the ranks, most of whom don’t have the same type of egalitarian message that women who are bothered by these things crave. Women who dine on the fruits of their dependence on men, who buy lock, stock & barrel the idea that a woman’s place is in the kitchen being financially supported by a man, they are the handle of the axe.

And yet, there are several in the Q15 who I know support equal pay for women and have many capable female colleagues in their careers and seem more-or-less to “get it.” But they aren’t taking the risk that their second marriage isn’t going to be eternal (a risk every women takes every time she enters a second marriage).

The issue with the temple sexism is that Brigham Young was truly, deeply misogynistic. And he’s canonized. Joseph Smith may have originated the temple liturgy, but it wasn’t written down until 40 years later under Brigham Young.

This is getting close to what I think is the real dynamic. It’s not so much financial dependence, but fear of being alone. If I don’t go along with this, my fiancé over there on the other side of the room won’t marry me. If I don’t go along with this, I’m no longer a full-fledged member of the church and will not be in that dating pool. If I don’t go along with this, I’ll have to look for a partner among men who don’t share the same culture and values. And I think the church has capitalized on that fear to a disgraceful degree with its deaf ear to the content of the ceremonies.

[Author]

Posts